Very good protocol for isometric and isotonic max contraction. Timeline of the training of #max contraction training (30 seconds hold) 15:05 A ) Seated Leg extension Quadriceps 16:35 B) Seated Leg curl Ischios 17:59 C) Standing Calf raise with dumbells 20:23 D) Seated latissimus dorsi Pul dowm with straps 21:36 E) Upper Trapezius Shrug with arm forward and little flexion thumbs in 22:21 F) Cable cross Pectorals 23:43 G) Lateral raise with Db for lateral Deltoids ( superset G and H) 24:31 H) Bent over lateral raise supinated grip for Posterior Delts 25:17 I) Preacher curls with barbell close grip Biceps 26:02 J) Kick back extension with straps Triceps 27:08 K) Pull down small crunch with straps for Abdominals
Isometrics are most appropriate for subjects with problems moving against resistance , the elderly, arthritic, injured, osteoporotic, et al, ie: a fragile group. Even isometrics can be injurious for these people. Ken Hutchins' "Super-Statics" minimizes problems: 20 seconds light effort + 20 moderate + 20 good effort + 20 as hard you feel is safe.
Many trainers misunderstand the difference between resistance and muscle tension. Muscle tension builds way more muscle. I hope you don't mind me saying that this system is not new, it's a lost art from the bronze era and ancient training.
Pick an era, pick a system. If you're honest with yourself, you'll know if you're really working hard enough. If you are, they all work. Some work faster, some work longer, some work more safely. Most people simply won't work hard & consistently for the years it takes to make real progress.
We need a challenging level of resistance to fully engage our muscular tension, so, while in one sense they're 'different', they go together. You're not going to create a muscle-building level of tension by posing.
The main problem with this is the mounds of evidence that 75-100% of hypertrophy stimulation occurs from producing tension in the lengthened half of the range of motion. I will use sets like this to activate muscles for compound exercises done in the lengthened range.
The intensity is also highest in that range so it would make sense for that to be true. You can go to failure by holding a static contraction at any point of the range of motion however. Given enough resistance and time.
@@drewmorg.Yes intensity is KEY not the so called lengthened range & you can also add in negative emphasis lowering very slowly after the static hold which is a killer!
@@WizzdummHeadley A muscle has the same strength curve no matter how strong it becomes. Training the stretch(weak)range strengthens the entire muscle, as does training the contracted(strong)range. Training stretch builds the same strength as training contracted, but with a lighter, safer weight. (I believe the research showing stretch range work to more efficiently tear muscle, enabling more over-building recuperation, but it's less of an issue.)
This won't make you monstrous, or bodybuilder big. This WILL get you strong asf though! Then again I've never revolved my entire workout around this style of training, so I don't know if it could potentially get you really big. I use a combination of this, slow negatives, speed changes, and angles. I mix functional and proprioception training. At the end of the day, it's all about what works best for you.
Getting truly hugely muscular while remaining fairly lean requires big eating, steroids, & the appropriate genetics. Only then will whichever protocol you use stand a chance.
Been doing it for 8 years. I’m 50 years old and look great. I don’t look like Arnold Schwarzenegger but I’m strong and all my nagging injuries are long gone.
currently reading natilus bullitin #1 by Arthur Jones and came across something that demonstrates the genius of this training style. "The well-known "all or nothing" principle of muscular-fiber function states that individual muscle-fibers perform work by contracting, by reducing their length - and that they are incapable of performing various degrees of work; that is to say, they are either working as hard as possible, or not at all. When a light movement is performed, it does not involve a slight effort on the part of a large number of muscular fibers; instead, only the exact number of fibers that are required to perform that particular movement will be involved at all - and they will be working to the limit of their momentary ability. The other, nonworking fibers may get pushed, pulled, or moved about by the movement - but they will contribute absolutely nothing to the work being performed. Thus, as should be obvious, in order to involve all of the muscle fibers in the work, the resistance must be so heavy that all of the fibers are required to move it. However, in practice, this is extremely difficult to do; because all of the individual muscle fibers cannot be involved in the work unless the muscle is in a position of full contraction. It should be plain that the muscle could be in no position except its shortest, fully-contracted position if all of the muscle fibers were contracted at the same time; the individual fibers must grow shorter in order to perform work, and if all of the fibers were shortened at the same time, then the muscle as a whole would have to be in a position of full contraction - no other position is even possible with full muscular contraction. Not, at least, unless the muscle is torn loose from its attachments. But it does not follow that even a position of full contraction will involve the working of all of the individual fibers; because only the actual number of fibers that are required to meet a momentarily imposed load will be called into play. Thus, in order to involve 100% of the fibers in a particular movement, two conditions are prerequisites; the muscle (and its related body part) must be in a position of full contraction - and a load must be imposed in that position that is heavy enough to require the work of all of the individual fibers. And in almost all conventional exercises, there is literally no resistance in the fully contracted position - at the very point in the exercise where the greatest amount of resistance is required, literally none is provided. In the top position of the squat, when the leg muscles are fully contracted, there is no resistance on these muscles - in the top position of the curl, when the bending muscles of the arm are in a position of full contraction, there is no resistance - in the top position of the bench press, when the triceps are in a position of full contraction and the pectorals and deltoids are as close to a position of full contraction as they get in that movement, there is no resistance. Dozens of other examples could be given, but those three should be enough. But what does the shape of a muscle have to do with this? While I have never been able to find anything in scientific journals regarding the order-of-involvement of individual muscular fibers in the performance of work (although my being unaware of such studies does not indicate that they have not been done), the very shape of a muscle seems to make this point clear; or, at least, when the shape is considered in connection with other, easily proven, factors. If a muscle is exposed to rotary, perfectly direct resistance, then it is immediately obvious that the strength of the muscle markedly increases as the position of the muscle changes from one of full extension to one of full contraction; which observation indicates that more fibers are involved in the work when the muscle is in a position of full contraction - or, at least, they are if resistance that will require their assistance is imposed. And since a muscular structure is thickest in its middle, this extra thickness indicating the presence of a greater number of strands of muscle fibers in that area, it logically follows that this thick midsection of the muscle is the last part called into play in a maximum-possible effort - and that it cannot be called into play unless the muscle as a whole is in a position of full contraction; thus it seems that muscular contraction starts at the ends of a muscle and gradually moves inward towards the middle of the muscle. In spite of an almost complete lack of scientific studies of the effects of exercise, it is self-evidently true that exercise does produce increases in both muscular mass and strength; and if this is true in spite of the fact that only a small percentage of the actual total number of individual muscle fibers are performing any work at all in conventional exercises, then it logically follows that a form of exercise which involved working all of the fibers would produce an even greater degree of results. Or, at least, that has been the apparently logical assumption that most of our research work has been based upon" The quote that stood out to me was "Thus, in order to involve 100% of the fibers in a particular movement, two conditions are prerequisites; the muscle (and its related body part) must be in a position of full contraction - and a load must be imposed in that position that is heavy enough to require the work of all of the individual fibers." Max contraction training satisfies these prerequisites, literally working ALL of the muscle fibers. This may just be the greatest bodybuilding routine ever invented... not only does it work all the muscle fibers, but by forgoing the eccentric movement (which phd ray peat says destroys mitochondria), and forgoing a lactic acid "pump" (which otto warburg implicated as causing cancer.) by keeping the set to around 6 seconds (as proposed in the original research), it creates minimal stress too... Thank you for this genius routine!
@@bambolincyprus9527 yes, I have seen great results the past month doing very short (3-8 second) contractions. When you go longer than that, you starve the muscle of oxygen, producing lactic acid. Look into the work of dr ray peat on why this is not ideal
@@TimShieff by the way I recently learned from Drew Baye that Arthur was wrong about this “all or nothing” concept. He says all of the fibers are activated at 90 degrees instead of max contraction
During rehab I used bodyweight for recovery. Basically isometrics... Suffice to say I am not going back to dynamic training. I now use very slow reps, keeping the muscle under tension throughout, but the real focus is on the negative, i. e. when the muscle is the most elongated and under tension. Example... Pull up... That usually takes apx 60+ seconds, enough for me to fatigue the muscle. Something that I don't do as seen in this upload was the way I start and finish each exercise. I start and finish with slowness in mind, nothing jerky or abrupt. More sloth-like than a raging bull approach.
I did this on the squat rack at 310 lbs.then did Pavels zip up workout for the next two weeks then went back to the gym and did 490 lbs. Then added 5 lbs. once a week. Does build strength!
This was basically my reaction as well. Overcoming Iso is like the perfect addition to a workout program, because it's simple, safe, and has huge mind-muscle connection benefits, along with improving max strength. This is an altogether inferior version, and only similar to yielding iso, but not even deploying targeted failure at weak points in ROM. I'm intrigued by the idea of doing progressive overload by increasing intensity and decreasing TUT, but wonder if that's just a gimmick for making the program have believable progress for the first few weeks.
Overcoming isos's good w/a monitor to quantify effort/progression. Without that objective input, only the most motivated are assured of consistent progress.
I tried this. My experience was that it definately builds or maintains strength but not much muscle growth. Makes sense really. But this is a great tool to increase strength to then use on full range movements later.
Naturally no matter the style of training results will be similar to a degree but use of ped’s and use this training like others will blast you up big and strong so point is naturally no matter what the might be a slight difference in this style to the bro split etc
Well if you actually watched the video three of the guys using this protocol gained a significant amount of bodyweight/muscle so clearly it DOES make you bigger .
Actually, doing the max contraction at the *end* of a full-range set is optimal: It's exerting one's full *available* strength in the strong range that builds strength; just as well as with *fresh* strength, & with less chance of the constant joint pain that the users of heavier weights suffer. When your weak range can't start another rep, cheat it up a few inches , and continue in the strong range.
Could this be done without spotters? What if the lifter uses both legs on a leg extension, extend out and then only hold it with one leg? That seems like it would work.
So would maximum contraction combined with variable resistance theoretically give you the most gains if the top of the motion is truly your max effort?
@@m.b.593easy do a rep and lower it as slow as you can ,giving you a negative that lasts at least 20 seconds .or better still do a static hold for as long as you can and no more than twice per week
*If* max contraction was valid as a superior muscle builder, *&* one could consistently muster up an honest effort isometrically, yes, but in fact, no, & no.
How strong do you want to be? Your CNS can be trained to use a genetically-determined % of its max strength *per muscular weight* . Some athletes are very strong w/little apparent muscle. This isn't the case for most of us. *THE POINT* : As strong as you might get at any given body-weight, you'd be stronger w/more muscle. There are reasons not to add weight, not wanting to compete in a heavier weight-division, disliking a bulky look, already being satisfied with your strength, or not wanting to buy a new wardrobe:^) You decide.
It may build strength in the static (endurance) but it's not going to do ANYTHING in a curl, bench press, squat, chin or deadlift... It is better than NOTHING...Back in the 70s my Grandad got in shape using a Bullworker...
@@mr.djcooncoon8196 Those exercises require skill and practice. You don't have to put on much muscle mass or bodyweight as a beginner to watch your deadlift or squat numbers skyrocket in the initial months. The point is to reduce skill requirement and load the muscle.
At least until you do permanent damage to your joints, tear your rotator cuff, or just finally break down your body from the repetitive stress. In India, I saw an old woman who looked to be 90+ squatting on her haunches in her vegetable stall for more than 30 minutes. Easily moving and reaching around for everything, never once standing up. How could she do that? It's a completely natural position. Our bodies were designed to move like that. Weightlifting is an unnatural and artificial behaviour. It's movements inevitably injure us. If I can get the same results with 1/10 the damage, I'm all for it.
@@terrifictomm Nah.Full range of motion and maybe some partials is the way to go to get maximum results,a quick google search and You will find enough real studies that backs up what I say.Everyone gets some wear and tear with the years(even if a person dont lift),its just nature.When that happens,a person should adjust the training loads/exercises/rest days to still keep lifting.The thing is younger people/kids these days use so much drugs,lift more than the body can handle with ego lifts and destroys their body without thinking about long view and want quick results.But keep half repping if You belive it gives the best maximum results.
Baye was saying this training isn’t effective if you don’t have 1-2 training partners to get the max weight to the contracted position. And doing it on your own won’t allow you to use the weight needed? Is that totally true? Is there anyone who has gotten results without needing training partners doing max contraction?
A power rack takes the place of partners. Set pins an inch below desired position. There are ways to cheat a weight into position, but injuries are likely. Max contraction isn't necessary. Training to failure, lighter weights, longer sets, slower reps: same results, no problems.
I love your book John! Since all gyms are closed, I have to use my home gym. (Boring!) This method, however is applicable even in my basement. The nutrition part bothers me a bit. There is no "balanced diet". What is the evidence, that we need to consume all that CHO you are suggesting. Orange juice?! For future non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, maybe.. Essential fats, essential protein.... the human body is "smart" to replenish lost glycogen via gluconeogenesis.
If you do max contractions with isometrics you are doing better. The contractions on the video are not max you can always add some weight until the point of failure (which would be very unsafe) so you are dancing w submax contractions vs. failure, neither one optimal. If you do a squat under a fixed bar (say in a safety cage) doing your max effort per 6 seconds then you are achieving what this video is aiming to. Myself I do 3 positions per exercise almost fully contracted, mid range and fairly extended. I do bench press, pull-down, dip, bend over row, military press, shroug (forgot the spelling😂), shoulder front raise, biceps curl, dead lift, squat and standing calf raise and seating calf raise.( He is also missing dead lift.) The whole routine in less than 25’ and it is a killer.
This is from a gentleman named John Little. He's on Instagram and would probably be happy to help. I'd assume once you can do a set with a weight desired weight for the full duration, then you increase.
As for the nutritional part I read a study of fasting and at the 48/72 hour period GHD levels can go up x500% not sure if the source is credible mind lol
Training balance exclusively only improves balance at the activity being practiced,. Balance across the board is improved with strength training. Age-impaired balance, (aside from health issues unique to the individual), is due to weak, atrophied muscles.
@@lazur1 I agree with that.I never said exclusively . Balance and strength training go together and while we are at it lets mix in some mobility training. Training the body both horizontally and vertically will build that strength and balance over time.
@@golfinspired2058 However, you *did* originally post that balance was "the most important", which implies that *training* for balance is the most important training. This is false. Training for *strength* is most important, & training for strength is also most important *for balance* . Combining balance challenges to strength training has a negative effect on strength training, & does nothing for real-world balance. The only valid balance work is done incidentally to activities in which you engage. For example: The balance skill required for an elderly subject to walk safely & confidently is attained by building strong leg muscles, and going for walks, not from balance exercises.
@@lazur1 I have taught for the last 17 years and worked with thousands of people, so I speak from experience. I have seen it all. . All you have to do is look at the stats and the number of injuries and deaths from falls especially among seniors .According to the CDC, over 17,000 people die in the U.S. annually due to slip, trip, and fall injuries. In 2021, 44,686 people died in falls at home and at work, according to Injury Facts®. Balance is built over time by strengthening the muscles both vertically and horizontally . Taking the body off center perhaps on one leg we strengthen the supportive muscles in that area. We also build neuro- pathways in the brain so it knows it can use those muscles. One of the trainers on youtube said something the other day that we get injured when we put the body in a position that it has never been in before or is not used to going. I was a weight lifter and have had many weight lifters in my class who only focused on strength building and believe me their balance was not good. Why ? Because they did not build "connective strength " the strength you get from putting the body in a potion where the muscle groups have to work together. Going for walks does nothing to build balance because we don't fall up and down . We fall all over the place and unless we have trained our muscles in different positions, it won't matter. Also we walk on hard surfaces and so the four corners of the feet never really get a chance to develop. Do you think that in the hunter -gatherer days, they lifted weights ?I don't think so. They did not wear shoes and their feet and body grew strong from the uneven contour of the land.
Strengthening muscle doesn't change its strength curve. *This disproves superiority of max contraction* : Doubling stretch position strength also doubles max strength, *but with a lighter, safer weight* , & recent research shows muscle-stimulating damage occurs mostly at stretch.
I hope this proves less insulting than the book that was produced with all the photos of mass monsters who've never performed a contraction hold in their lives.
@@anth115 I did this for almost a year in my mid 20's and even though my TUT and/or weights increased every session I got to big numbers with this it had zero carry over to dynamic strength. In fact I lost dynamic strength.
I liked Little's book, but two things were wrong. 1. There is no such thing as nutrition science. Bart Kay. 2. High cholesterol is not a problem. It is only associated with heart disease, not causal.
@@christofl6523 the golden rule - when in the gym , give it 100% regardless of method , sitting on a machine playing with a phone and do a half assed set every 5 mins is a waste of time .
Bart Kay: Fraud. Don't die for his sake. Strong, repeated correlation's not literally causation, but it's worthy of more attention than a rude ass who lies about his credentials.
Isometrics were a staple for many Bronze Era bodybuilders and strongmen. The Paul Wade book has plenty of scientific citations. The fact is that no-one has built the most muscle without pharmaceutical help. But what I'm most curious about is why you write so many comments over weeks and months on a video you disagree with. You come across as more a religious zealot than an informed practitioner.
@@mkfort A staple, indeed, but not an exclusive method for the more muscular men. I can't control how how I "come across" to you. Of what religion to I seem to be a zealot?
@@lazur1 the religion of convincing people watching an old video that a particular modality of strength training is suboptimal. Most people don't train at all. I enjoy incorporating isometrics into my workouts and I'm sure it has helped my strength and my physic. I guess just like every post-bronze age body builder can be suspected of enhancement every bronze age body builder can be suspected of lifting a dumbbell. But not every one wants to be a body builder, and body builders are not very healthy as a group. Find movements you enjoy and challenge you, perform them regularly, eat well and get your sleep.
John, are you a natural? Because, except for your explanation of protein intake, I don't agree with any of this. There are a ton of successful bodybuilders who don't workout anywhere near this intense, I myself, included.
Not inferior in the sense of building strength. However, it is inferior to dynamic motion exercise aka traditional weight training exercises for building overall mass and flexibility.
@@taoist32 In the long run, yes, isometrics are inferior for building strength: You can only get as strong as truly possible by also gaining as much muscle as possible. If you prefer to be as strong as possible without getting bigger, (to stay in a competitive weight-class, avoid needing a new wardrobe, or your girlfriend likes Brad Pitt, not Ronnie Coleman), fine, but you could get even stronger.
Basing an entire workout around ONE high intensity technique (called statics) is not going to give you ANY progress. If someone who was already in good gym shape did this "max contraction" workout for 6 weeks and then went back on their old routine to see if they progressed in strength they would be shocked how much they lost in size and strength...If this was so great it would carry over to one rep maxes...We KNOW it won't...
Very good protocol for isometric and isotonic max contraction.
Timeline of the training of #max contraction training (30 seconds hold)
15:05 A ) Seated Leg extension Quadriceps
16:35 B) Seated Leg curl Ischios
17:59 C) Standing Calf raise with dumbells
20:23 D) Seated latissimus dorsi Pul dowm with straps
21:36 E) Upper Trapezius Shrug with arm forward and little flexion thumbs in
22:21 F) Cable cross Pectorals
23:43 G) Lateral raise with Db for lateral Deltoids ( superset G and H)
24:31 H) Bent over lateral raise supinated grip for Posterior Delts
25:17 I) Preacher curls with barbell close grip Biceps
26:02 J) Kick back extension with straps Triceps
27:08 K) Pull down small crunch with straps for Abdominals
Isometrics are most appropriate for subjects with problems moving against resistance , the elderly, arthritic, injured, osteoporotic, et al, ie: a fragile group. Even isometrics can be injurious for these people. Ken Hutchins' "Super-Statics" minimizes problems: 20 seconds light effort + 20 moderate + 20 good effort + 20 as hard you feel is safe.
How many times a week though?
this is the best information available yet most people will continue using traditional methods and continue to struggle.
Many trainers misunderstand the difference between resistance and muscle tension. Muscle tension builds way more muscle. I hope you don't mind me saying that this system is not new, it's a lost art from the bronze era and ancient training.
where can i read more about the ancient training methods?
@@incorectulpolitic Sandow books, George Hackenschmidt, Maxick, Montesaldo, Professor Attila.
Pick an era, pick a system. If you're honest with yourself, you'll know if you're really working hard enough. If you are, they all work. Some work faster, some work longer, some work more safely. Most people simply won't work hard & consistently for the years it takes to make real progress.
We need a challenging level of resistance to fully engage our muscular tension, so, while in one sense they're 'different', they go together. You're not going to create a muscle-building level of tension by posing.
The main problem with this is the mounds of evidence that 75-100% of hypertrophy stimulation occurs from producing tension in the lengthened half of the range of motion. I will use sets like this to activate muscles for compound exercises done in the lengthened range.
The intensity is also highest in that range so it would make sense for that to be true. You can go to failure by holding a static contraction at any point of the range of motion however. Given enough resistance and time.
@@drewmorg.Yes intensity is KEY not the so called lengthened range & you can also add in negative emphasis lowering very slowly after the static hold which is a killer!
There is supposedly mounds of "evidence" that say all kinds of things but such DOES NOT make it true.
@@WizzdummHeadley A muscle has the same strength curve no matter how strong it becomes. Training the stretch(weak)range strengthens the entire muscle, as does training the contracted(strong)range. Training stretch builds the same strength as training contracted, but with a lighter, safer weight. (I believe the research showing stretch range work to more efficiently tear muscle, enabling more over-building recuperation, but it's less of an issue.)
@@WizzdummHeadley The negative after failing to hold isometrically should be an attempt to continue the hold. The weight will determine the speed:^)
Really interesting concept. I'll definetly give this a try
This won't make you monstrous, or bodybuilder big. This WILL get you strong asf though! Then again I've never revolved my entire workout around this style of training, so I don't know if it could potentially get you really big. I use a combination of this, slow negatives, speed changes, and angles. I mix functional and proprioception training. At the end of the day, it's all about what works best for you.
No such thing as "functional training" & static holds are ABSOLUTELY BRUTAL especially in combination with negative emphasis.
Most people will never get monstrously big.
@@WizzdummHeadleytell that to Mike Mentzer 😮
Getting truly hugely muscular while remaining fairly lean requires big eating, steroids, & the appropriate genetics. Only then will whichever protocol you use stand a chance.
@@lazur1 The issue here is that a HIT protocol is the most logical/sensible/time efficient manner in which to achieve ones goals.
I am going to give this a try... sounds interesting
Don't waste your time.
@Lesane Crooks It doesn't work. Complete pseudoscience that's been debunked over and over. I wasted months training like this with negative results.
Been doing it for 8 years. I’m 50 years old and look great. I don’t look like Arnold Schwarzenegger but I’m strong and all my nagging injuries are long gone.
currently reading natilus bullitin #1 by Arthur Jones and came across something that demonstrates the genius of this training style. "The well-known "all or nothing" principle of muscular-fiber function states that individual muscle-fibers
perform work by contracting, by reducing their length - and that they are incapable of performing various
degrees of work; that is to say, they are either working as hard as possible, or not at all. When a light movement
is performed, it does not involve a slight effort on the part of a large number of muscular fibers; instead, only
the exact number of fibers that are required to perform that particular movement will be involved at all - and
they will be working to the limit of their momentary ability. The other, nonworking fibers may get pushed,
pulled, or moved about by the movement - but they will contribute absolutely nothing to the work being
performed.
Thus, as should be obvious, in order to involve all of the muscle fibers in the work, the resistance must be so
heavy that all of the fibers are required to move it.
However, in practice, this is extremely difficult to do; because all of the individual muscle fibers cannot be
involved in the work unless the muscle is in a position of full contraction.
It should be plain that the muscle could be in no position except its shortest, fully-contracted position if all of
the muscle fibers were contracted at the same time; the individual fibers must grow shorter in order to perform
work, and if all of the fibers were shortened at the same time, then the muscle as a whole would have to be in a
position of full contraction - no other position is even possible with full muscular contraction. Not, at least,
unless the muscle is torn loose from its attachments.
But it does not follow that even a position of full contraction will involve the working of all of the individual
fibers; because only the actual number of fibers that are required to meet a momentarily imposed load will be
called into play.
Thus, in order to involve 100% of the fibers in a particular movement, two conditions are prerequisites; the
muscle (and its related body part) must be in a position of full contraction - and a load must be imposed in that
position that is heavy enough to require the work of all of the individual fibers.
And in almost all conventional exercises, there is literally no resistance in the fully contracted position - at the
very point in the exercise where the greatest amount of resistance is required, literally none is provided.
In the top position of the squat, when the leg muscles are fully contracted, there is no resistance on these
muscles - in the top position of the curl, when the bending muscles of the arm are in a position of full
contraction, there is no resistance - in the top position of the bench press, when the triceps are in a position of
full contraction and the pectorals and deltoids are as close to a position of full contraction as they get in that
movement, there is no resistance. Dozens of other examples could be given, but those three should be enough.
But what does the shape of a muscle have to do with this?
While I have never been able to find anything in scientific journals regarding the order-of-involvement of
individual muscular fibers in the performance of work (although my being unaware of such studies does not
indicate that they have not been done), the very shape of a muscle seems to make this point clear; or, at least,
when the shape is considered in connection with other, easily proven, factors.
If a muscle is exposed to rotary, perfectly direct resistance, then it is immediately obvious that the strength of
the muscle markedly increases as the position of the muscle changes from one of full extension to one of full
contraction; which observation indicates that more fibers are involved in the work when the muscle is in a
position of full contraction - or, at least, they are if resistance that will require their assistance is imposed.
And since a muscular structure is thickest in its middle, this extra thickness indicating the presence of a greater
number of strands of muscle fibers in that area, it logically follows that this thick midsection of the muscle is
the last part called into play in a maximum-possible effort - and that it cannot be called into play unless the
muscle as a whole is in a position of full contraction; thus it seems that muscular contraction starts at the ends of
a muscle and gradually moves inward towards the middle of the muscle.
In spite of an almost complete lack of scientific studies of the effects of exercise, it is self-evidently true that
exercise does produce increases in both muscular mass and strength; and if this is true in spite of the fact that
only a small percentage of the actual total number of individual muscle fibers are performing any work at all in
conventional exercises, then it logically follows that a form of exercise which involved working all of the fibers
would produce an even greater degree of results. Or, at least, that has been the apparently logical assumption
that most of our research work has been based upon"
The quote that stood out to me was "Thus, in order to involve 100% of the fibers in a particular movement, two conditions are prerequisites; the
muscle (and its related body part) must be in a position of full contraction - and a load must be imposed in that
position that is heavy enough to require the work of all of the individual fibers."
Max contraction training satisfies these prerequisites, literally working ALL of the muscle fibers.
This may just be the greatest bodybuilding routine ever invented... not only does it work all the muscle fibers, but by forgoing the eccentric movement (which phd ray peat says destroys mitochondria), and forgoing a lactic acid "pump" (which otto warburg implicated as causing cancer.) by keeping the set to around 6 seconds (as proposed in the original research), it creates minimal stress too...
Thank you for this genius routine!
So, you think it`d be better to stick to the original 6 seconds instead of 30 as in this video?
@@bambolincyprus9527 yes, I have seen great results the past month doing very short (3-8 second) contractions. When you go longer than that, you starve the muscle of oxygen, producing lactic acid. Look into the work of dr ray peat on why this is not ideal
@@nate8415 I'm briefly familiar with the work of dr Peat. Thanks mate!
Great quote thanks
@@TimShieff by the way I recently learned from Drew Baye that Arthur was wrong about this “all or nothing” concept.
He says all of the fibers are activated at 90 degrees instead of max contraction
During rehab I used bodyweight for recovery.
Basically isometrics...
Suffice to say I am not going back to dynamic training.
I now use very slow reps, keeping the muscle under tension throughout, but the real focus is on the negative, i. e. when the muscle is the most elongated and under tension.
Example...
Pull up...
That usually takes apx 60+ seconds, enough for me to fatigue the muscle.
Something that I don't do as seen in this upload was the way I start and finish each exercise.
I start and finish with slowness in mind, nothing jerky or abrupt. More sloth-like than a raging bull approach.
Slow reps are dynamic, not isometric. I assume you meant you're not going back to explosive training.
I did this on the squat rack at 310 lbs.then did Pavels zip up workout for the next two weeks then went back to the gym and did 490 lbs. Then added 5 lbs. once a week. Does build strength!
😉
This appears to be "Yielding Isometrics" . Steve Maxwell , Drew Baye , etc. Say it works, but "Overcoming Isometrics" is much more effective.
This was basically my reaction as well.
Overcoming Iso is like the perfect addition to a workout program, because it's simple, safe, and has huge mind-muscle connection benefits, along with improving max strength.
This is an altogether inferior version, and only similar to yielding iso, but not even deploying targeted failure at weak points in ROM.
I'm intrigued by the idea of doing progressive overload by increasing intensity and decreasing TUT, but wonder if that's just a gimmick for making the program have believable progress for the first few weeks.
Overcoming isos's good w/a monitor to quantify effort/progression. Without that objective input, only the most motivated are assured of consistent progress.
I tried this. My experience was that it definately builds or maintains strength but not much muscle growth. Makes sense really. But this is a great tool to increase strength to then use on full range movements later.
. etc methods
Hi, Strength is more important to me building. You can use strength. Thanks
Naturally no matter the style of training results will be similar to a degree but use of ped’s and use this training like others will blast you up big and strong so point is naturally no matter what the might be a slight difference in this style to the bro split etc
Well if you actually watched the video three of the guys using this protocol gained a significant amount of bodyweight/muscle so clearly it DOES make you bigger .
Actually, doing the max contraction at the *end* of a full-range set is optimal: It's exerting one's full *available* strength in the strong range that builds strength; just as well as with *fresh* strength, & with less chance of the constant joint pain that the users of heavier weights suffer. When your weak range can't start another rep, cheat it up a few inches , and continue in the strong range.
Could this be done without spotters? What if the lifter uses both legs on a leg extension, extend out and then only hold it with one leg? That seems like it would work.
So would maximum contraction combined with variable resistance theoretically give you the most gains if the top of the motion is truly your max effort?
I think intensity/effort is the key but you can combine protocols/methods for sure.
I just do max contraction at home to maintain strength.
How? 🙏🏻
@@m.b.593easy do a rep and lower it as slow as you can ,giving you a negative that lasts at least 20 seconds .or better still do a static hold for as long as you can and no more than twice per week
That would prove that isometrics build muscle, right?
*If* max contraction was valid as a superior muscle builder, *&* one could consistently muster up an honest effort isometrically, yes, but in fact, no, & no.
How strong do you want to be? Your CNS can be trained to use a genetically-determined % of its max strength *per muscular weight* . Some athletes are very strong w/little apparent muscle. This isn't the case for most of us. *THE POINT* : As strong as you might get at any given body-weight, you'd be stronger w/more muscle. There are reasons not to add weight, not wanting to compete in a heavier weight-division, disliking a bulky look, already being satisfied with your strength, or not wanting to buy a new wardrobe:^) You decide.
My results are it builds strength, but not hypertrophy
It may build strength in the static (endurance) but it's not going to do ANYTHING in a curl, bench press, squat, chin or deadlift... It is better than NOTHING...Back in the 70s my Grandad got in shape using a Bullworker...
@@mr.djcooncoon8196 Those exercises require skill and practice. You don't have to put on much muscle mass or bodyweight as a beginner to watch your deadlift or squat numbers skyrocket in the initial months. The point is to reduce skill requirement and load the muscle.
I did shoulder shrugs pinch as much as i can and got some pains at the 23-25 second count no weights. Im a 50 yuear old i better get moving.
very near to high intensity training
Amazing....
Reminds me of funny ego lifters in the gym with no results.Think I`ll stick to full range of motion.
At least until you do permanent damage to your joints, tear your rotator cuff, or just finally break down your body from the repetitive stress.
In India, I saw an old woman who looked to be 90+ squatting on her haunches in her vegetable stall for more than 30 minutes. Easily moving and reaching around for everything, never once standing up. How could she do that? It's a completely natural position. Our bodies were designed to move like that.
Weightlifting is an unnatural and artificial behaviour. It's movements inevitably injure us.
If I can get the same results with 1/10 the damage, I'm all for it.
@@terrifictomm Nah.Full range of motion and maybe some partials is the way to go to get maximum results,a quick google search and You will find enough real studies that backs up what I say.Everyone gets some wear and tear with the years(even if a person dont lift),its just nature.When that happens,a person should adjust the training loads/exercises/rest days to still keep lifting.The thing is younger people/kids these days use so much drugs,lift more than the body can handle with ego lifts and destroys their body without thinking about long view and want quick results.But keep half repping if You belive it gives the best maximum results.
@@espendahl9719
Right. Cuz injuries while lifting hardly ever happen. People who get hurt just didn’t do it right.
They’re still hurt.
What if you don't have access to machines
how can you do this with free weights only ?
Get a spotter !
These are more like isometrics for wrestlers not bodybuilding.
EXACTLY!!!!
I’ve been doing it for 5 years and I would agree. Not necessarily “wrestlers” but for functional strength in any sport.
Wrestlers should do their isometrics by wrestling with training partners. Strength training should be with movement.
It occurred to me recently that John's voice reminds me of Ric Drasin's. Just with a little Canadian touch.
I'll pass that onto John.
Baye was saying this training isn’t effective if you don’t have 1-2 training partners to get the max weight to the contracted position. And doing it on your own won’t allow you to use the weight needed? Is that totally true? Is there anyone who has gotten results without needing training partners doing max contraction?
A power rack takes the place of partners. Set pins an inch below desired position. There are ways to cheat a weight into position, but injuries are likely. Max contraction isn't necessary. Training to failure, lighter weights, longer sets, slower reps: same results, no problems.
Look up Alexander Zass
I love the training approach, however, CHO is NOT an essential nutrient in one's diet.
Is John little the Bruce Lee fan?
yep, the biggest fan
Where do I buy max straps
I love your book John! Since all gyms are closed, I have to use my home gym. (Boring!) This method, however is applicable even in my basement. The nutrition part bothers me a bit.
There is no "balanced diet". What is the evidence, that we need to consume all that CHO you are suggesting. Orange juice?! For future non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, maybe..
Essential fats, essential protein.... the human body is "smart" to replenish lost glycogen via gluconeogenesis.
If you do max contractions with isometrics you are doing better. The contractions on the video are not max you can always add some weight until the point of failure (which would be very unsafe) so you are dancing w submax contractions vs. failure, neither one optimal. If you do a squat under a fixed bar (say in a safety cage) doing your max effort per 6 seconds then you are achieving what this video is aiming to.
Myself I do 3 positions per exercise almost fully contracted, mid range and fairly extended. I do bench press, pull-down, dip, bend over row, military press, shroug (forgot the spelling😂), shoulder front raise, biceps curl, dead lift, squat and standing calf raise and seating calf raise.( He is also missing dead lift.)
The whole routine in less than 25’ and it is a killer.
I use an bullworker steel and an isobow and can’t believe the results
Orhic, bee pollen, and dedicated liver are actually great supplements
And you can def find orchic today. And it definitely does increase testosterone, thus increasing muscle growth
Is each hold always 30 sec.? Also, when and how do I begin to add weight to each hold. 21:35
This is from a gentleman named John Little. He's on Instagram and would probably be happy to help. I'd assume once you can do a set with a weight desired weight for the full duration, then you increase.
33:17 spitting straight facts here
XCELLENT - LITTLE. - FINALLY - THE. TRUTH -
Why not just do this for the last rep?
Indeed.
As for the nutritional part I read a study of fasting and at the 48/72 hour period GHD levels can go up x500% not sure if the source is credible mind lol
If, after all's said done, your average daily caloric intake's increased, maybe a short fast'd be ok, but not really.
You missed the most important one in fitness and that is balance. In the long run balance will be number one as we age
Training balance exclusively only improves balance at the activity being practiced,. Balance across the board is improved with strength training. Age-impaired balance, (aside from health issues unique to the individual), is due to weak, atrophied muscles.
@@lazur1 I agree with that.I never said exclusively . Balance and strength training go together and while we are at it lets mix in some mobility training. Training the body both horizontally and vertically will build that strength and balance over time.
@@golfinspired2058 However, you *did* originally post that balance was "the most important", which implies that *training* for balance is the most important training. This is false. Training for *strength* is most important, & training for strength is also most important *for balance* . Combining balance challenges to strength training has a negative effect on strength training, & does nothing for real-world balance. The only valid balance work is done incidentally to activities in which you engage. For example: The balance skill required for an elderly subject to walk safely & confidently is attained by building strong leg muscles, and going for walks, not from balance exercises.
@@lazur1 I have taught for the last 17 years and worked with thousands of people, so I speak from experience. I have seen it all. . All you have to do is look at the stats and the number of injuries and deaths from falls especially among seniors .According to the CDC, over 17,000 people die in the U.S. annually due to slip, trip, and fall injuries. In 2021, 44,686 people died in falls at home and at work, according to Injury Facts®. Balance is built over time by strengthening the muscles both vertically and horizontally . Taking the body off center perhaps on one leg we strengthen the supportive muscles in that area. We also build neuro- pathways in the brain so it knows it can use those muscles. One of the trainers on youtube said something the other day that we get injured when we put the body in a position that it has never been in before or is not used to going. I was a weight lifter and have had many weight lifters in my class who only focused on strength building and believe me their balance was not good. Why ? Because they did not build "connective strength " the strength you get from putting the body in a potion where the muscle groups have to work together. Going for walks does nothing to build balance because we don't fall up and down . We fall all over the place and unless we have trained our muscles in different positions, it won't matter. Also we walk on hard surfaces and so the four corners of the feet never really get a chance to develop. Do you think that in the hunter -gatherer days, they lifted weights ?I don't think so. They did not wear shoes and their feet and body grew strong from the uneven contour of the land.
42:00 Perfect Injury scenario
Strengthening muscle doesn't change its strength curve. *This disproves superiority of max contraction* : Doubling stretch position strength also doubles max strength, *but with a lighter, safer weight* , & recent research shows muscle-stimulating damage occurs mostly at stretch.
I hope this proves less insulting than the book that was produced with all the photos of mass monsters who've never performed a contraction hold in their lives.
Crazy genetics and drugs tend to produce insane results
Do this with just one bodypart and see if it helps. I have and it didn't, but I'm pretty near my genetic potential.
Ben McLeod spoiler alert it won’t help. There’s a reason this technique died out.
@@LightCrow Just like all the HIT garbage. It all died out because it didn't work.
Can't believe I even glanced at this book 20 years ago, all the premises are hilarious, plus why is the athlete awkwardly oiled up lol
o ya how long did you try it for?
What is more stupid? The first guy ridiculously oiled up or the guy deadlifting the 600 lb barbell about 3 inches...
@@anth115 I did this for almost a year in my mid 20's and even though my TUT and/or weights increased every session I got to big numbers with this it had zero carry over to dynamic strength. In fact I lost dynamic strength.
@@eoinforHIT I've done it for 15 years and it carries over and have seen teh best gains ever. Most don't do it correctly or long enough.
@@eoinforHIT define dynamic strength? I can lift a car up now by the bumper. Before this training no.
I liked Little's book, but two things were wrong. 1. There is no such thing as nutrition science. Bart Kay. 2. High cholesterol is not a problem. It is only associated with heart disease, not causal.
There is no such thing as exercise science either.
@@christofl6523 Like what you learn in a classroom? That is MAJOR BS....
@@mr.djcooncoon8196 Exercise science is major bs.
@@christofl6523 the golden rule - when in the gym , give it 100% regardless of method , sitting on a machine playing with a phone and do a half assed set every 5 mins is a waste of time .
Bart Kay: Fraud. Don't die for his sake. Strong, repeated correlation's not literally causation, but it's worthy of more attention than a rude ass who lies about his credentials.
WTF? So what happened with the Olympic Athlete from the beginning of the video?
This research is faulty. The fact is that no one has built the most muscle with max contraction.
Isometrics were a staple for many Bronze Era bodybuilders and strongmen. The Paul Wade book has plenty of scientific citations. The fact is that no-one has built the most muscle without pharmaceutical help. But what I'm most curious about is why you write so many comments over weeks and months on a video you disagree with. You come across as more a religious zealot than an informed practitioner.
@@mkfort A staple, indeed, but not an exclusive method for the more muscular men. I can't control how how I "come across" to you. Of what religion to I seem to be a zealot?
@@lazur1 the religion of convincing people watching an old video that a particular modality of strength training is suboptimal. Most people don't train at all. I enjoy incorporating isometrics into my workouts and I'm sure it has helped my strength and my physic. I guess just like every post-bronze age body builder can be suspected of enhancement every bronze age body builder can be suspected of lifting a dumbbell. But not every one wants to be a body builder, and body builders are not very healthy as a group. Find movements you enjoy and challenge you, perform them regularly, eat well and get your sleep.
@@mkfortThat’s a really long name for a religion. No wonder it hasn’t caught on in a big way.
@@mkfort In a very real sense, everyone should be a bodybuilder, & thus have their optimal body composition.
John, are you a natural? Because, except for your explanation of protein intake, I don't agree with any of this. There are a ton of successful bodybuilders who don't workout anywhere near this intense, I myself, included.
Show me a IFBB pro who trains this way and I will consider it
When I have heard of max contraction training I was told it was more for wrestlers and grapplers not for bodybuilding like what this guy is saying.
Mike Mentzer 😮
@@BigBoaby-sg1yo lmao 🤣 that’s competing currently in the professional ranks
It’s called an Isometric hold and it’s not new. It’s been tested and is grossly inferior to traditional progressive resistance training.
fool. try a 1 minute hold then a couple of reps afterwards
Not inferior in the sense of building strength. However, it is inferior to dynamic motion exercise aka traditional weight training exercises for building overall mass and flexibility.
@@taoist32bullworker would not have survived the test of time if they did not work - there is a great demand for them - especially the bullworker x5
@@taoist32 In the long run, yes, isometrics are inferior for building strength: You can only get as strong as truly possible by also gaining as much muscle as possible. If you prefer to be as strong as possible without getting bigger, (to stay in a competitive weight-class, avoid needing a new wardrobe, or your girlfriend likes Brad Pitt, not Ronnie Coleman), fine, but you could get even stronger.
Basing an entire workout around ONE high intensity technique (called statics) is not going to give you ANY progress. If someone who was already in good gym shape did this "max contraction" workout for 6 weeks and then went back on their old routine to see if they progressed in strength they would be shocked how much they lost in size and strength...If this was so great it would carry over to one rep maxes...We KNOW it won't...
Bs.
Max Contraction Training, Static Contraction Training, Body By Science, what new BS scam will Little come up with next?